I-T - If reply filed assessee was not considered by AO before making assessment, there is breach of principles of natural justice: HC

I-T - Where Revenue is not able to establish that order passed by Tribunal on finding of fact was perverse, no interference is called for: HC

I-T - If transaction was off market transaction of listed shares held by assessee as investment in its balance sheet, then AO cannot assume commercial prudence over same for making additions : ITAT

I-T- When scrutiny assessment and subsequent assessment order u/s 143(3) was passed, appeal proceedings against processing and adjustment made by CPC, becomes infructuous: ITAT

I-T - Since assessee has not been able to explain source of investments made by it, then AO has rightly made addition as unexplained investments in hands of assessee u/s 69: ITAT

I-T - Where amendment to Sec 54B came only after 2013 and AY relates to 2006-07, amendment will not be applied for previous year: ITAT

I-T - Charging of interest @ 16% is quite reasonable and this is for regular business commitment and completion of projects : ITAT

CX - With regard to extended period, department has not produced any material to show that there is suppression on the part of appellant with intend to evade payment of service tax, impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

Cus - When fabrics are coated and coating is visible to naked eye, same are classifiable only under Chapter 59 of Customs Tarriff Act, goods are correctly classifiable under Chapter Heading No.5903: CESTAT

2023-TIOL-1116-HC-JHARKHAND-MISC

Usha Martin Ltd Vs State Of Jharkhand

Whether where the State Government of Jharkhand was keen to encourage private sectors to establish such number of CPPs as would be required by it to meet the existing and future demand of its Industrial units, even generation of surplus energy through CPPs could have been purchased by SEB from private sectors., the assessee is liable for benefit of exemption from payment of electricity duty - YES: HC

- Assessee's appeal allowed: JHARKHAND HIGH COURT

2023-TIOL-823-CESTAT-DEL

Vimla Infrastructure (India) Pvt Ltd Vs CCGST & CT

ST - The issue that arises is with regard to demand of service tax on difference in the rate charged by appellant from the members of consortium and non-members for providing 'cargo handling services', since the case of department is that a lesser rate has been charged from members of consortium - For the previous years, three SCNs had been issued to appellant raising demand of service tax on two issues - The first issue was with regard to demand of service tax on deposits made in favour of appellant by members of consortium - The second was with regard to demand of service tax on difference in rate charged by appellant from the members of consortium and non-members for providing 'cargo handling services' - These three SCNs were adjudicated by three separate orders confirming the demand - These three orders of adjudicating authority were assailed before the Tribunal in three service tax appeals - All the three service tax appeals were decided by a common order - The appeals were allowed and the three impugned orders were set aside - As the reasons given by Adjudicating authority for confirming demands are the same as in the earlier three proceedings, the two orders, each dated 28.09.2017, passed by Commissioner (A) are set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: DELHI CESTAT

JCB India Ltd Vs CCE

CX - The appellant is inter alia engaged in manufacture and sale of earth moving machineries such as excavators and loaders at its plant in Faridabad, in State of Haryana - While selling the aforesaid earth moving machineries, appellant promises "free services" to its customers, during warranty period of machines sold - For the purpose of providing free service, appellant entered into a contractual relationship with its dealers - The dealers rendered free service to customers concerned and raised invoice on appellant along with service tax - The tax paid by dealers on after sales service was also recovered from appellant and said tax was claimed as credit under CENVAT Credit provisions by appellant - Two SCNs were issued to appellant for relevant period proposing to deny CENVAT Credit on the ground that same did not qualify as "input service" within the meaning of Rule 2(l) of CCR, 2004 - The issue of admissibility of credit to appellant on after sales services or services provided by dealers to appellant's customers during warranty period is no more res-integra and has been decided by Tribunal vide Order 2023-TIOL-356-CESTAT-CHD in appellant's own case for prior period - With regard to extended period, department has not produced any material to show that there is suppression on the part of appellant with intend to evade payment of service tax - Impugned order is set aside: CESTAT

- Appeals allowed: CHANDIGARH CESTAT

CC Vs Umbar Marketing Pvt Ltd

Cus - Assessee has imported Non-Texturised Polyster Lining Fabric and filed Bill of Entry by classifying the same under Chapter Heading No.5903 - On examination, revenue found that imported goods were 'Umbrella Panel Fabrics' classifiable under Chapter Heading 5407 - Accordingly, goods were seized and later provisionally released on execution of bond and Bank Guarantee - Department proposed to classify the goods under CTH 5407 only on the basis of end use - End use of product cannot be a criteria for classification - However, as held by Supreme court in case of Indian Aluminium Cables , end use alone cannot determine the classification - The other parameters such as nature of cloth, nature of coating are required to be ascertained to classify the fabrics - Further, when fabrics are coated and coating is visible to naked eye, the fabrics are classifiable only under Chapter 59 of Customs Tarriff Act - But, the specific sub heading under which it is to be classified will depend on nature of material coated - The goods are not classifiable under CTH 54071094 as proposed by revenue: CESTAT

- Appeal rejected: KOLKATA CESTAT